Film Review

What we learned about dragons the first time around: They can be trained. What we learn about dragons the second time around: They're still subservient to the caprices of their bloated, slow-moving alpha. If How to Train Your Dragon saw DreamWorks's up-to-then mostly flailing animation branch demonstrating a surprisingly thorough understanding of the trainings of Pixar, its sequel can't seem to shake off the expectations stemming from the 2010 original's behemoth box-office success. And even though the boy-pet bonding between gawky Hiccup (Jay Baruchel) and his stealth but goofy sidekick Toothless (Randy Thom) remains as earnest as you please, the simple alchemy of their unlikely union ends up lost amid the needlessly complicated agendas fuelling what is now a fledgling franchise.

Now approaching adulthood even though his voice still hasn't changed, Hiccup justifies his latent wanderlust by saddling up on Toothless and exploring the far corners of what his Viking brethren can justifiably claim as their territory. While mapping his latest find with his tomboy love interest, Astrid (America Ferrera), in tow, Hiccup happens upon a trawler of dragon trappers and realizes his little island utopia, the Isle of Berk, may not be the only community where dragons and humans coexist. What's even more frightening is the implication that the other humans who've allegedly also tamed the winged beasts aren't intending to simply keep them as razor-toothed, fire-breathing cuddlemuffins-cum-personal transportation devices.

Hiccup is a willowy pacifist boy-child who has nonetheless earned some measure of respect among a virile race whose leathery necks tent out from beneath their pinheads to a circumference of approximately seven feet. But when his warrior father, Stoick (Gerard Butler), learns that the dragon trappers are working under the orders of the shadowy Drago Bludvist (Djimon Hounsou), no amount of strident choruses of "Give Peace a Chance" from Hiccup's corner will stop Stoick from prepping battle stations. Amid the chest-puffing prelude to war, Hiccup wonders what might have been had he ever gotten to know his mother, who Stoick says was killed by dragons when the boy was an infant. The ensuing quest announces How to Train Your Dragon 2 as a proposal for maternal social structures. (This from a franchise based on a series of books whose female characters bear names like Old Wrinkly and Big-Boobied Bertha.) The original cartoon's unstinting argument on behalf of grace was among its most compelling features, and you can't really blame writer-director Dean DeBlois for trying to expand on the theme. But the shift in focus comes at the expense of what made the first movie so exceptional.

A disappointing disconnect manifests itself time and again. Early on in the movie, Hiccup and Astrid make cute passes at each other while Toothless and Stormfly, Astrid's dragon, romp around in the background like a pair of not especially bright Dalmatians, fighting over uprooted trees as though they were sticks. At first it seems a clever way to allow Toothless to upstage the otherwise tedious expositional orders of business. But then increasingly throughout the movie Toothless gets shuffled to the sidelines to handle intermittent gag patrol, leaving Hiccup without a proper foil and turning him into a wet blanket. In a sense, one could tolerantly say the movie's heart is in the right place. In a more accurate sense, one could point out the movie's heart is just goddamned everywhere, and as such is also in a few of the wrong places. Like Toothless himself trying to fight off the hypnotic beck and call of the movie's malevolent alpha leviathan, How to Train Your Dragon 2 has the core of a genuine crowd-pleaser, but unfortunately something bigger and more all-consuming keeps getting into its head.

RELATED ARTICLES

The movie was ok, but no where near as good as the first. And unlike the first the plot just seemed to draaaaaag. Also was anyone else getting this vibe like hiccups mom was going to feral rape him? It was gettn a weird creep factor after awhile. Seriously, stranger fucking danger.

Also it kinda pissed me off how his pop's ko'd. Ud think more a blaze of glory but in reality its just because his sons a stupid hippy.

Posted by dudits on 2014-12-08 20:59:46

This movie was a big disappointment and I'm sick of people attacking me for not liking it.

They keep throwing stupid arguments at me like "oh, you must be a Dreamworks hater", or "well, I suppose you just can't enjoy a movie for kids without overthinking".

Well, I'm a HUGE fan of the first HTTYD, when it was in the theaters i went to see it 3 times.SO SORRY if I'm not brainwashed by the fandom and I'm still capable of seeing flawsin the movie (yes, this movie is not perfect, there are people that didn't like it, GET OVER IT).

Also, it's so ironic how fans of the httyd franchise are bashing at the critic for "not being objective" when theyrself are the first to deny anything wrong with it regardless.

Hypocrites.

Posted by Serena Mirò on 2014-11-07 16:48:51

dislike this movie. my expectation were too much for this and big disappointment. small dragon couldnt fight head on queen but defeted the king too hard to swallow. last moment the king looks smaller compare to rest of the movie. this piece is similar to Naruto dose of friendship and stupidity. the way they extend the anime series by junk episode- i feel this part 2 is the same. Dean DeBlois director must have earned the fame because of other director. let me put 1 more thing, if first part was not released, i might have liked this second.

Posted by nisarg on 2014-09-30 20:03:24

I was three months ago when the movie was out, you moron.

Posted by Conner David Boyd on 2014-09-16 01:22:21

Dragons are fictional bro

Posted by bronson on 2014-09-15 22:15:47

You would

Posted by bronson on 2014-09-15 22:11:43

He gave it two stars, not because it was "warm and fuzzy" as you suppose, but because the story, pacing, direction, character development etc were flakey. Guess what? Some people who aren't critics do have brains, and don't want to be bored by predictable movies, and even children's movies can be challenging, original, confound expectations, truly witty, clever, and still be colourful and retain the magic and innocence of childhood. What my inner child demands is the best, because he's a god damned connoisseur. Would you give your child anything less?

Posted by bronson on 2014-09-15 22:08:44

Dayum son, I cin ony fine too, and their bofe komments on udder coments. Bro do you even logic?

Posted by bronson on 2014-09-15 22:01:36

My inner child, as everyone's should, has more pride than to swallow whatever half-assed effort the suits in hollywood consider the bare minimum they need to pass off on a bunch of mewling, fat wallet taps. They make their true opinion of everyone's inner child known by the quality of the work they deliver, and mine always knew to look at more than the surface detail and seek a bit of substance. The balance is lacking in this movie, too much of the former at the expense of the latter. Would that we all had such pride in ourselves and our inner child's dignity, maybe they'd know they had to try harder, but inner-children these days just ain't made like they used to be.

"A fact which is pathetic in an amongst itself"What language is this comment written in?

Posted by bronson on 2014-09-15 21:30:34

Remember, a majority (like, greater than 50%) of people in the western world are obese now. The wisdom of the herd is not to be trusted.

Posted by bronson on 2014-09-15 21:25:46

Burn! All you naysayers done gat burnnnd! Good review, disappointing movie. Fan of the original. Stop throwing money at animators, the animations fine, throw some money at writers!

Posted by bronson on 2014-09-15 21:23:06

To be honest after being an avid fan of the books the movies made me feel like punching something. They're ok as films on their own, but not as film adaptations. I sincerely hope that all the people saying that the film is "amazing" have read the books because then they'll realise how frustrating they are.

Posted by Ella on 2014-09-03 08:09:56

"The saying goes, those who can't make, critique."Isn't criticism (the professional kind), by definition, still making something? It's a tragically dumb saying that contradicts whatever point it was trying to make in the first place.

Posted by kba99 on 2014-07-30 16:32:22

dickheadgood enough, that´s all the attention you deserve, not even an entire setence

Yes, that's what I said. It is one thing for the average film viewer to whine that he "didn't like it", but a film critic *should* be more objective and evaluate different elements of a film, rather than a simple and subjective gut reaction. I don't like Mercedes, but I'm not going to write off their quality. If a critic thought the first Dragon movie was good, and the second one has better visuals, better animation, better lighting, better story development, additional successful elements such as romance, drama, decent pacing, etc. - then that critic has to conclude the second film is also "good", but maybe he just didn't like it as much. That seems fair to me. To say you didn't like it but not acknowledge the elements that were in fact better (and significantly so)... well that's just a lazy review.

Posted by Dave on 2014-07-16 13:06:30

No possible way ANYONE who watched this film could POSSIBLY give this less than 3/4?

Really?

Posted by Jack t on 2014-07-15 19:02:53

Wow, that was an amazing response (no sarcasm). Respect!

Posted by Jack t on 2014-07-15 19:01:28

Am I the only one who thinks the movie was actually really bad? The plot was constructed sloppily and the amount of plot holes that resulted is not something I can ignore

Posted by Redpanda on 2014-07-10 09:05:07

I agree, the movie was very dissapointing.

Posted by Redpanda on 2014-07-10 09:03:32

I AM SO GLAD I HAVE FOUND SOMEONE ELSE THAT DOESNT LIKE THIS MOVIE. Can I please ask, did you think it was worse than Shrek 3? I feel they are on par in pretty much every way.

Posted by Ben H Godden on 2014-07-07 01:57:15

Man, you need to see further. At the starting sentence of your review I can see your lack of objectiveness and deep film analysis. What we´ve learned from this movie about dragons, following your line of though and according to the movie´s universe: Not only they can be trained, but also we can learn something about loyalty and true friendship even though dragon´s natural limitations.

Posted by smatock on 2014-06-21 00:46:54

Malcolm, both are proper. Dreamworks is a single entity, not a plural noun. This is the Slant style.

Posted by Slant Magazine on 2014-06-18 12:27:09

Okay, I feel somewhat stupid now. Thanks for pointing that out. But that additional s in "DreamWorks's" shouldn't be there, to my understanding it should read: DreamWorks'.

Posted by Malcolm McG on 2014-06-18 11:14:04

I completely agree. Henderson's spelling is awful, but this is still nowhere near as incomprehensible as his Wolf of Wall Street review: "Sensation aims to glide over where hollow, platitudinous words themselves fail in The Wolf of Wall Street, which through sleight of hand transmogrifies Belfort's tell-all on the art of being an obscenely well-heeled heel into a ribald bildungsroman that, evidently, also aims to indict the lunacy of the American dream."

Posted by Eero Vanne on 2014-06-17 08:50:06

Except what he wrote is grammatically correct. You also spelled apostrophes incorrectly, so you may want to check your own grammar and spelling before pointing out errors that are not actually errors.

Posted by Aaron Chan on 2014-06-16 19:01:44

I think Mr. Bender has put forward the most asinine and ignorant viewpoints ever about film critics. The sad thing is that he represents a group who feel that they must go and bad-mouth every critic who didn't agree with them.

Btw, I saw the film last night and enjoyed it. But at the same time I also agree with Mr. Henderson about some of the things, like the way Toothless is presented. His background shenanigans of with other dragons soon became tiresome and I had some problems with that the whole 'mother' thing. But overall, I thought it was a rousing entertainment - most definitely not as good as the first, but very watchable.

Posted by shazwagon on 2014-06-16 01:11:17

And the winner of this year's scholarship from the Bill O'Reilly Anti-Logic "Think" Tank goes to...

Posted by Robert Humanick on 2014-06-15 20:18:49

Degrades is the wrong word, KD. You should have said "diminishes," because degrade means to break down chemically, while diminishes means to lessen, which is more appropriate. Sooo....

Posted by Daniel Hill on 2014-06-15 15:37:30

You're talking about someone who has reviewed many Disney movies, many of them enthusiastically, and then some. You're avoiding the issue, and illustrating why we can't have nice things.

Posted by Robert Humanick on 2014-06-14 03:09:25

Great. We can all use apotrophies, but Eric can't:

... saw DreamWorks's up-to-then ...

Posted by Campbell McGrouther on 2014-06-13 16:28:43

I laughed.

Posted by ephender on 2014-06-13 12:38:43

Sure you say that now but if a creature of that caliber was ever in front of you you'd crap your pants first and then would your sense of humor recover?

Posted by James Bender on 2014-06-13 06:59:46

Naw it was just a ruse that he professes he "liked" Toothless in the first movie. Otherwise he wouldn't be bad mouthing the second movie. Movie critics NEVER share their true feelings or view points about a movie. And, I've seen enough clips and the first five minutes to KNOW HTTYD 2 will be awesome. Movie critics have no faith in stories they have an interest in because they have to be detached from their review. Those critics who did like it have interests in elements of the movie.

Posted by James Bender on 2014-06-13 06:57:56

I'm mostly on the side of people who are defending Slant, but please don't say that Slant "leans intellectual." Unless you're essentially using "intellectual" as a codeword for "pretentious", "intellectual" film criticism implies a level of academic rigor that neither Slant nor any other site on RT/metacritic comes close to approaching.

And I don't mean that in a pretentious way, I'm just saying that Slant is a fucking pop culture criticism website and has never purported to be anything greater than that.

Posted by nurd_complex on 2014-06-12 20:09:35

Because of the grammar failure, I can't tell if this is genuine or satirical. Bravo.

Posted by Robert Humanick on 2014-06-12 18:52:08

Go read some of Roger Ebert's blog and then say that with a straight face. If you do so, you'll be lying. Note: many film critics have become film directors, and vice versa. At the end of the day, you're really just talking about anyone who has an opinion that's different than your own, and many of us (critics) do this simply for the love of it.

Posted by Robert Humanick on 2014-06-12 18:50:57

You're a robot, aren't you?

Posted by Robert Humanick on 2014-06-12 18:44:06

Can I buy you a drink?

Posted by Robert Humanick on 2014-06-12 18:43:36

What you said. ("Move on. Stop judging things you don't understand.")

Posted by Robert Humanick on 2014-06-12 18:41:48

It seems like he did enjoy the first film, so I am guessing he did like Toothless seeing as the relationship between Hiccup and Toothless was what he praised the first film for. Also have you seen the film yet, because if you haven't you probably shouldn't just assume that the critics opinion is wrong.

Posted by Sam on 2014-06-12 15:50:52

Clarence: so are you trying to invent a continuation of the expression? How does that go... "Those who can't make, critique. And those who can't critique, critique..."??? Do you see the failed logic in that?

Additionally, I think placeholder20 has already revealed that he was a part of the creative team that made this movie so the, "those who can't..." expression really doesn't apply to him. He CAN. He and all of his co-workers succeeded in making a fantastic movie and I hope it does great at the box office.

"The saying goes, those who can't make, critique."Oh yes...and those who can't critique for a living, critique the critique. :)

Posted by ClarenceBoddicker on 2014-06-12 03:36:59

The sense of humor to enjoy Toothless is similar to those asinine pet videos that proliferate on Youtube, Such high caliber entertainment it is.

Posted by ebolaoutkast on 2014-06-12 01:12:32

He didn't like the movie. GET OVER IT. And stop trying to sound smart (ironic, right?), I can barely understand what you're trying to say. Resembles a college student abusing Dictionary.com.

Posted by ebolaoutkast on 2014-06-12 01:08:42

Ed, you are awesome.

Posted by ebolaoutkast on 2014-06-12 01:04:06

His review doesn't really tell me why or convince me that it deserves the stars that he rated it. After reading the review, I was expecting at least 3 stars. He complains about little things. He complains about the situations of the characters themselves, which is no reason to give a film a bad review. It's like giving a film a bad review because a character in that film is weak even though the story calls for that character to be weak.

Posted by joser116 on 2014-06-12 00:26:12

Naw he just dislikes Toothless because Eric has no sense of humor. I'mbetting if anyone knew he liked Toothless or any Dragon for that matter it might be considered a smirch of doubt to his validity as a movie critic.

Posted by James Bender on 2014-06-11 20:41:16

It's not really hate it's the inability to enjoy fantasy. I've run into too many people who think reality is the end all be all and fantasy is a bit waste of time and effort.Those who can't appreciate the fun and grandeur of Fantasy stories should never have the right to express an opinion.

Posted by James Bender on 2014-06-11 20:32:51

Hey Hey Hey, Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. I know it sucks that it brought httyd 2 down from a 100 to a 96 but it will go back up again with just a few more reviews. Yea the film kind of gets bashed but it is honestly not fair to bash him just for disliking a movie. Reading what he said about the movie made me want to cry but his writing is really poetic.

Posted by Jennifer Harvey on 2014-06-11 20:31:18

I said the Movie will make a ton of money and make a lot of people happy not this hack critic.

Posted by James Bender on 2014-06-11 20:28:54

He does not like the film because it loses focus on the relationship between Hiccup and Toothless, which then turns Toothless into a gag reel instead of a character. You can tell this pretty easily just by reading the final paragraph. And don't try to say you could not understand it because of his use of "difficult" words because I am 16 and do not exactly have exceptional reading comprehension and I could still easily understand this review. The more I look at Slant's commenting section this seems to be the argument by everyone coming over from Rotten Tomatoes, that the reviewers are just righting negative reviews for clicks and then hiding it by using complicated words, but really I have never had difficulty reading one of their reviews, so either America's trouble with reading is worse than I thought or people just don't like opinions that differ from their own.

Posted by Sam on 2014-06-11 19:52:42

I had to look up 'locution', an action which proved your point entirely.

Posted by Seriously on 2014-06-11 17:50:36

Very good, you know how to use apostrophes. Now try practicing some creativity when composing your insults.

Posted by KD on 2014-06-11 17:16:08

I like this guy.

Posted by placeholder20 on 2014-06-11 16:20:22

I just want to thank placeholder20 and Ed Gonzales for giving me a laugh this afternoon. For the record, it seems unnecessary and classless for Ed, with whatever affiliation he has with this website, to come out swinging at placeholder by talking down to him and ignoring his feedback. Instead, Ed seems to pick a fight and condescendingly goes to his thesaurus to prove that the reviewer used appropriate similes in his pretentious and overly wordy review. It might have been better to consider there could be some truth in placeholder's feedback and revisit the writers reviews for this and other movies. This is clearly a film receiving a lot of praise by critics and moviegoers and it does feel cheap and forced the way the reviewer rated the film when his review doesn't have many (if any) measurable complaints. placeholder's complaint gains even more credibility when you see that this reviewer is also among the small minority that didn't enjoy The Winter Soldier (another hugely successful film praised by fans and critics alike). As for as his writing style, it may not be wrong or incorrect grammatically, but it's far from eloquent or admirable. It feels like someone went through his review and used a thesaurus on every fourth word just to make sure their unsupported opinion won't be questioned since they are clearly so intelligent in their word selections. And as for Ed and placeholder's grammar war, I loved seeing placeholder trash Eric for his writing, only to have Ed come after placeholder for a writing error he made... the only problem is Ed can't make it through his first sentencing before making an error of his own (you shouldn't end sentences with a preposition). And before someone replies to me about something I may have written wrong... I really don't care. My critique is not that they used improper grammar, but Ed chastising placeholder was a funny dose of hypocrisy. In short, I loved the exchange. I do think it's worth noting that a lot of people are providing the same feedback that this review is poorly written and his opinion seems underdeveloped. Rather than childishly arguing with someone over this opinion, the people running this site should take this as an opportunity to improve the quality of their work.

Posted by Cake83 on 2014-06-11 15:58:49

I keep reading this review and I think: Okay, he doesn't like this movie, but he seems completely unable to express exactly WHY he doesn't like it, which I think is a big minus for a movie critic. It's like that teacher who simply cannot help his class, therefore it's impossible to tell if he's actually knowledgeable enough to teach in the first place.

It feels like he's angry at the movie for being good or for some reason he can't tell, so to conceal this fact he just goes on trying to make his review more intelligent--for lack of a better word. Some critics, I think, believe if they disagree with other critics, they prove to be a better one. I love how every critic expresses his/her opinion, negative or positive, but saying 'this movie sucks' and then not at least trying to prove your point is a bit unprofessional. A good review, again negative or positive, is the one that makes sense generally. This review, unfortunately, does not. At all.

Posted by Aty S Behsam on 2014-06-11 15:55:47

Says the guy who has already commented on the review twice with no shortage of hostility.

Posted by Conner David Boyd on 2014-06-11 15:46:42

This is intellectual? Are you kidding me? This review is like scrabble played by a room full of kids with Down syndrome.

You people are arguing in an internet comment section about English that is normal. It's absolutely pathetic.

The English language evolves with time. There is no such thing as "normal" English. There is good and bad writing, but there's nothing normal about one of the most abnormal languages in the world.

Further, the try-hard (yes, I'm allowed to use Internet slang on *gasp* the Internet) that wrote this review aimed for Shakespearian, but landed somewhere between a smoldering, clunky, over-indulged piece of garbage and Legally Blonde 2.

Stop trying to be smarter than everyone, it makes you look stupid.

Posted by Conner David Boyd on 2014-06-11 15:39:10

Correction: YOU couldn't understand the review. It made perfect sense to me. Since you clearly have a penchant for acting like a child with a temper-tantrum, perhaps you should stick to making snorefest children's movies and leave the professional criticism to the grownups.

Posted by D-Man on 2014-06-11 15:08:33

Understand, Eric is pretty darned human. But a writer needs to impress with ideas, not vocabulary (unless the intended audience is the Europhras member list). Some of the best writers I can think of appealed to all strata of readership BECAUSE they could enrapture with even the most banal locution (see what I did there? ;). Insight and style, not vernacular.

Posted by Kauboi on 2014-06-11 15:04:49

A human: "I need to drive to the grocery store".

Eric Henderson: "It is a matter of import, an imperative if you will, that I, a mere mortal collection of carbon atoms, commandeer this vessel - this metal machination-cum-personal-transportation-device, to go on this quest, a quest subservient to my visceral physical needs as a human who hungers for food, to a local distributor of digestibles."

Posted by Seriously on 2014-06-11 14:33:27

Wow, Eric - way to completely destroy your credibility. Even if you didn't care for it there is no possible way anyone could rate this less than 3 out of 4 stars. This is Dreamwork's most ambitious film; only an idiot would be blind to its creative and technical achievements. It is a new bar for the animation industry... but I guess irony and "going against the grain" gets more clicks.

Posted by Dave on 2014-06-11 13:31:08

The whole point of this review is for Slant Magazine to garner page hits. Stop clicking!

Posted by riskbreaker81 on 2014-06-11 12:41:01

Here's my last reply to this Merry-Go-Round.

My issue is not with that Mr. Henderson didn't like the movie. He's well within his rights to dislike the movie. My issue is that he is incapable of communicating about why he didn't like the movie, and therefor is giving bad press without the ability to back any of it up.

I've read his review top to bottom a few times now, and I honestly can't tell you what he thought of the movie. Luckily, those little red stars at the top of the article are able to visually let me know what he thought. They communicate more than the entirety of the review.

Now, if you (or anyone) has a clear, and distinct opinion about why the movie is bad, I'm happy to discuss it. But an overly verbose, pseudo-intellectual post on some obscure website seems to be a stunt to get traffic. It speaks volumes about the standards of this website.

And, as the owner/editor/manager/moderator (whatever your role actually is) of the content of this website, I get that you need to defend your guy. Good for you. But you and I are both smart enough to know that its a poorly written review, and doesn't deserve to be linked along with actual critics with clearly communicated opinions about the movie.

The saying goes, those who can't make, critique.

Posted by placeholder20 on 2014-06-11 12:37:26

Eric (God love ya), someday I hope you learn. I know you don't usually read these posts (you told me so twice in person). And as I told you both times, I truly wonder if you have ever just sat back and enjoyed a movie. Not lamented its "lack of latent neopolitical voice" or that the film was "a pale echo to the efforts of Kubrick in his heyday." You have some decent insights but for once, can you watch a film through the eyes of the common audience instead of as an Arts graduate trying to justify his thesis? You panned Snow White (1937) and M.A.S.H. (1970) for God's sake. Did you take Armond's course in social interaction online?

The real tragedy? You gave 2 stars to the film because it was too warm and fuzzy. In a kids' animated film. Perspective, Eric.

Posted by Kauboi on 2014-06-11 12:33:57

Hi, placeholder. You harbor all sorts of fantasies about how I feel about this film (fact: I haven't seen it) and how much money we make per click to our articles (fact: about a penny). You also seem way too smart to actually believe that if a person's view of one film, Mary Poppins, doesn't flatter your own, that that somehow invalidates their views on all other films. I'm not a grammar Nazi, but I will go out of my way to point out pot-calling-the-kettle-black-itis when I see it. If you want to constructively speak with me about this review, please feel free to email me and let's get the ball rolling on that, but I don't get the sense that you're interested in that sort of conversation given the accusatory, inflammatory nature of your posts. Thank you, though, for revealing to us that you had a hand in the making of this film. That explains, partly at least, why it must be such a nuisance that this review is currently the only negative one on Rotten Tomato (poor Fox must be pained that they can't trot out that Yeti of a marketing label "Certified 100% Fresh"), which is, at the end of the day, why most of the people commenting on this article are here, no? The definition of fascism is "a way of organizing a society in which a government ruled by a dictator controls the lives of the people and in which people are not allowed to disagree with the government." I don't care if our writers are taken to task for their use of language, or for how their views are ostensibly poorly articulated, except no one here is interested in having a constructive conversation on such matters (though we'll see if that changes after the commenters here have actually seen the movie). But to accuse our writers of faking their reviews isn't a "fact," but a hysteric theory based on, yes, fascist principles of condemning dissent. I have a hard time believing that you, or any other person who's thumbed-up your initial post, has never gone "against the current" by not liking a film that everyone else seems to. That doesn't make a person an idiot, a troll, a whore, a waste of time and space (all ugly words used by the group-think proponent), but an individual who believes in exercising their right to free expression.

Posted by Ed Gonzalez on 2014-06-11 12:10:12

Hi Ed,

I'm so sorry that in order to defend this review you had to invoke fascism. I understand why you did it, of course. The review is indefensible by any logical means, so you must work outside the logical. While I do appreciate the English lesson, you seem to have stopped quoting write when you got to the juicy part of my quote:

"...whose leathery necks tent out from beneath their pinheads to a circumference of approximately seven feet."

Explain to me, if you please the purpose of this section of the quoted sentence? I'm pretty sure that if you tried to pass this off in any journalism course it would come back to you circled in bright red ink. Let us not forget this section as well:

Mr. Henderson can invent and throw out all the $5 words he wants, but it doesn't cover up his inability to write a sentence with any meaning whatsoever.

I must applaud Mr. Henderson though. His gambit worked, I've now been to this page three times, which is more than any other review I've read on the film.

It gives me a small amount of satisfaction to know that after three years of working on the movie, we've managed to avoid making a simple, "dumbed down" sequel. This one obviously "flew" right over your head and Mr. Henderson's word-a-day calendar.

I'd recommend pulling the review to avoid damaging the credibility of "Slant Magazine" (which doesn't actually seem to be a magazine, which seems ironic?) but this may be one of your most profitable reviews yet. I may be a fascist, but at least I'm not a whore.

Posted by placeholder20 on 2014-06-11 11:20:40

Well since one's appreciation and understanding of the most obnoxious and unnecessarily esoteric sentences (like the one placeholder20 quoted) seems to be your metric of whether or not that person has any validity (coupled with your self-righteous quickness to nitpick their grammar), I'd like to point out that I believe you meant "...that we went against the current" when you said "...that we went along the current". Going "along" (read: moving in a consistent direction) the current would imply that other people behaved and thought as you did. Which, in this case, I guess would mean that everyone else is also writing totally hack articles where the writer is trying to impress their audience with unnecessarily convoluted verbosity, rather than construct sentences of good design that actually make sense and convey a cohesive argument. Again, it is not the negative review that is rubbing people the wrong way, it is the fact that the author is clearly too busy being impressed with his usage of a thesaurus to generate any semblance of a point.

Posted by Seriously on 2014-06-11 11:00:51

Yes, it's English, but it is the kind of English that makes you think the writer read his "todo" list wrong, and thought he was working on his entry for the Bulwer-Lytton Fiction Contest.

Posted by tzs on 2014-06-11 06:11:00

He could write the most perfect negative review of a film in history and you disingenuous people would still flock over from Rotten Tomatoes to piss and moan about it.

Posted by elce18 on 2014-06-11 04:42:09

I'm not entirely sure what you disliked about the film... I felt that the central conflict and themes of the movie were quite evident and reinforced by events in the film. I'd rather not elaborate on certain points, however, as I am reluctant to discuss spoilerific scenes that occur later in the movie. However, I do strongly disagree with your discussion of the film's "heart," as I felt, if anything, that's something the movie possesses in spades as I actually cared about these characters and their conspicuous growth (from the first movie).

Posted by Megabyte117 on 2014-06-11 00:26:56

He doesn't have to be objective. This isn't for an academic journal. His personal approach to the film is what makes individual reviews worth reading.

Making a ton of money? It'd be hard work to find a rich freelancing film critic.

Making a lot of people happy? Seems like this comment section isn't very happy.

I expect lots of good criticism from Slant. I don't agree with half of the reviews, but that doesn't invalidate their criticism or their writing -- it just makes the whole venture more fun.

He gets paid to offer an honest and reasoned critique about film. He's not paid to agree with you.

Posted by Johnny M on 2014-06-10 23:14:23

Everybody calm the F down, all right? So one critic didn't like the movie. Big deal. He's doing his job: presenting an honest critique of a piece of cultural art. A 100% on Rotten Tomatoes means absolutely nothing in the end, and I can guarantee you that if Eric Henderson didn't give the film a bad review, someone else would have, and you would all descend upon THAT critic and call HIM grade-school names in your questionable grammar. It's just a movie. You should really just relax.

Posted by Johnny M on 2014-06-10 23:10:32

In "normal" English, we also don't use words like "weaksauce", especially in movie reviews for a website that leans intellectual.

Posted by Johnny M on 2014-06-10 23:05:21

So, I'm guessing that most of the people not enjoying this movie have no business watching an animated film because they are so jaded and basically hate on anything that doesn't fit into their tiny little worlds of hate. Move on. Stop judging things you don't understand.

Posted by Christa Chilton on 2014-06-10 23:01:31

Man, the sentiment is the same. You're an idiot.

Posted by Christa Chilton on 2014-06-10 22:58:27

I like Slant, but it's always a bit irritating reading the comments. Are we still trying to act like flawless grammar/punctuation = intelligence? Or that you can debunk someone's argument by pointing out the lack of an apostrophe? I can't count how many times I've read either a visitor *or a reviewer* use, "YEAH, BUT YOU MISSPELLED A WORD, LOL, YOUR ARGUMENT IS INVALID" as a response to a different opinion. Just something to think about. The review seems pretty fair, by the way. I'm still heading in to see this though....Or buying it on bootlegged, whichever.

Posted by Sophia on 2014-06-10 22:33:18

Film critics don't have imaginations in the first place.

Posted by James Bender on 2014-06-10 22:32:35

It's Not over protection of a franchise. He doesn't have to love it like we do.He just can't write a critique without making himself sound like a hack in a high school paper. He didn't "watch" the movie, he just "looked at it" indifferently when this type of movie is truly not meant for someone like him. He was NOT objective. He just slathered out a pot of swill about a story not meant for his mindset that is not only going to make a ton of money but more importantly make a lot of people happy. And besides, what good could one expect from a movie critic from a magazine called Slant anyway?

Posted by James Bender on 2014-06-10 22:31:12

Not surprising coming from a guy that gave Captain America: Winter Soldier 1 1/2 stars.

Posted by joser116 on 2014-06-10 22:00:38

If you missed the point, in normal English, generally we don't pad out our sentance with 20 or thirty 'difficult' words. It's not that they're difficult themselves, they're difficult in groups, and it makes it hard to take in what the reviewers saying and figure out what he means.

Many words could have been dropped from the quoted sentance. Most of them are pointless, and probably there as a facade to hide the faults of the reviewers weaksauce argument. The same way a highschooler pads their essay with idioms like 'at the end of the day', to try and hide the fact he couldn't come up with more examples or points.

Posted by ferrat on 2014-06-10 20:51:08

Dear placeholder20: The review is in English, and I'm happy to help you parse (that means interpret) anything in the sentence that you're having trouble with. "Hiccup is a willowy (read: skinny and ostensibly weak) pacificist (read: someone who likes peace) who has nonetheless earned some measure of respect among a virile (read: people who are known for their strenth) race..." Shall I go on? No? Okay, how about I simply point out the irony of you asking if this review is in English, then giving us this choice nugget: "A fact which is patehtic in an amongst itself." I think you meant to say "A fact which is pathetic in and of itself." THAT'S proper English, though what truly boggles is what evidence, empirical or otherwise, you've come across to determine that it's a "fact" that we went along the current to generate traffic. The fantasy that you harbor that critics go out of their way to contrive fake opinions is less insult to us than it is to your own imagination, in the sense that it reveals that you have none at all. I doubt you actually think this, but if you DO believe that all people should swim the same cultural and social waters in the same direction, well, man, that's just sad, because then you're just an agent of fascism.

Posted by Ed Gonzalez on 2014-06-10 19:58:26

You're, not your. The fact that I had to correct your grammar degrades your statement a considerable amount I'd say.

Posted by KD on 2014-06-10 17:12:40

Yaa it's like your talking about Pixar the worst Company that doesn't exist. But this is A good Movie it Diserves Four stars For there cast And Composer John Powell , Jónsi, this is Good when you realize Man this is a pretty good fuckin Movie. :)

Posted by YouTube on 2014-06-10 16:43:29

Man, you should watch more movies and read a few books . . . Seriously, your review sucks. It's like you don't like the movie and you can't even tell why so you just wrote this review in an alien language that doesn't even make sense.

Posted by Hamid Reza Sahl Abadi on 2014-06-10 14:44:28

"Hiccup is a willowy pacifist boy-child who has nonetheless earned some measure of respect among a virile race whose leathery necks tent out from beneath their pinheads to a circumference of approximately seven feet."

What language is this review written in? This might be one of the most poorly written movie reviews that I've ever read, and sadly it seems to just be going against the current in an attempt to generate traffic. (A fact which is pathetic in an amongst itself.) If you want to make money with a website, you should create some compelling content rather than generating cheap traffic with a strategy such as this.

Take this review with a grain of salt, this guy gave Mary Poppins a 3 out 4 stars. Apparently, it wasn't brilliant enough for Mr. Henderson here. What a joke.